So, what does this say about the gun owners debate?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Would you say your hunting rifle is less deadly than an M-16 or AK-47?

Or do you have some fantasy that your rifle is "ok" because your firearm was "designed for hunting" therefore it is less likely to be stuck with the "stigma" of being a "people killer" rifle?

Let me help him!

Hopefully i am not taking the wind out of your sails - but a hunting rifle is MUCH more deadly than an M-16 or AK-47.

-S

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Let me help him!

Hopefully i am not taking the wind out of your sails - but a hunting rifle is MUCH more deadly than an M-16 or AK-47.

-S

A profiecient rifleman will make any of the above mentioned firearms a deadly weapon in his/her hands.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

A profiecient rifleman will make any of the above mentioned firearms a deadly weapon in his/her hands.

That is true, but military arms primary function is designed to mame, not kill at range. It is a harder task with anything military. A hunting rifle however has one and only one purpose - kill so you can drag the meat home.

-S

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

That is true, but military arms primary function is designed to mame, not kill at range. -S

Depends on the military rifle in question.

Eugene Stoner designed the XM-15 to wound and therefore take 3 men out of the battle at once (one wounded, two men to drag you out and fix you) and to clog the rear logistics areas.

Mikhail Kalishnikov designed the AK-47 so a chimpanzee could use and maintain the rifle in the field and still perform it's job (killing enemy soldiers).

So it kinda varies (on a shallow range that is) of what the arms' designed purpose actually is, but then I'd just be splitting hairs on a regular basis (that gets old FAST).

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Depends on the military rifle in question.

Eugene Stoner designed the XM-15 to wound and therefore take 3 men out of the battle at once (one wounded, two men to drag you out and fix you) and to clog the rear logistics areas.

Mikhail Kalishnikov designed the AK-47 so a chimpanzee could use and maintain the rifle in the field and still perform it's job (killing enemy soldiers).

So it kinda varies (on a shallow range that is) of what the arms' designed purpose actually is, but then I'd just be splitting hairs on a regular basis (that gets old FAST).

You missed the fact that the Geneva convention requires rifles be designed like this. They are designed purposely not to kill - AS a requirement! Enemies like it for the 3 man rule, and combatants like it because they probably won't be killed.

This is not by accident they are not designed to kill.

Problem is, Stoners XM-15 has a habit of killing at short range to to massive internal damage done by a fragmenting bullet when fired from 14.5" barrels or longer. This was by accident.

At any sort of range however, the AR-15 / M-16 performs as designed and will mame instead of kill as intended.

-S

PS. The AK-47 does a much better job at short range than the AR-15/M-16 - entering and exiting like a small calibre weapon with minimum damage.

PPS. Statistics show that crazies that enter a shopping mall toting a 12 guage loaded with buck shot, you've got a less than 30% of survival rate if hit. If these same crazies enter with an AK-47, your chances are 76% even when hit multiple times. You take your pick.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

PPS. Statistics show that crazies that enter a shopping mall toting a 12 guage loaded with buck shot, you've got a less than 30% of survival rate if hit. If these same crazies enter with an AK-47, your chances are 76% even when hit multiple times. You take your pick.

Is there a lever for "None of the above" ?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Is there a lever for "None of the above" ?

I wish. Though life is all about 'chances and circumstance'. You are dealt the cards you get. Somehow, all card decks are dealt evenly - each and every last person on this planet has a problem of some sort that eats at them. This can be family, money, happiness, moral choices, you name it - but all are equally difficult to overcome. In the end, we are all equal and the same.

-S

[jpm1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Let me help him!

Hopefully i am not taking the wind out of your sails - but a hunting rifle is MUCH more deadly than an M-16 or AK-47.

-S

i don't agree against one personel yes but i let you imagine how a massacre like Columbine's would be difficult to achieve with a hunting rifle

[1480]

Yahoshua- yeah, had I've had a front row ticket to the greatest show on earth for 16 years now. My capacity on the job has changed, and as much as I've seen us get thrown to the wolves by our media, citizens and higher ups, I wouldn't change places with anyone.


Platapus- Only one was confirmed AEA. The rest were gallows humor so to speak. And thanks for the kind words Sir!

jpm1- Charles Whitman killed 14 and wounded 31 at the University of Texas from the 28th floor of the Tower. Impossible to do that with a handgun.

[jpm1]

Originally Posted by 1480

Yahoshua- yeah, had I've had a front row ticket to the greatest show on earth for 16 years now. My capacity on the job has changed, and as much as I've seen us get thrown to the wolves by our media, citizens and higher ups, I wouldn't change places with anyone.


Platapus- Only one was confirmed AEA. The rest were gallows humor so to speak. And thanks for the kind words Sir!

jpm1- Charles Whitman killed 14 and wounded 31 at the University of Texas from the 28th floor of the Tower. Impossible to do that with a handgun.

you're right but what i wanted to say it's that a rifle holder can be stopped much more easily than an automatic weapon holder , it's also more easy for a victim to escape from a rifle holder that's why this kind of weapon 's more easy to own in France than an automatic weapon . Hunting shotguns canno't contain more than 5 cartridges everything's done so that even with the weapons that are more easy to use if something should happen the maniac could be fastly and easily put out of an harmful state by the order forces . As long as i remember i don't remember a short news item in which an unstable person would kill people with an unauthorized weapon it happens sometimes like anywhere else but with a calibre 12 and in general the maniac in worst cases kills it's family and then kills himself as like if he knew if he goes out with such an "inapropriate" weapon he'll be fastly stopped and could die in a not very glorious way

[1480]

jpm1: I kind of get the jist of what you are saying. As a man that has to run towards the armed maniac, my kevlar vest will more then likely keep me alive if that armed maniac is armed with a handgun or shotgun. A hunting rifle for the most part are either bolt action or semi-automatic BUT use a military rifle round. Kevlar vests will just keep a person's intestines from pouring out of the exit wound. The second thing that scares me about long guns, the men armed with them, tend to be very proficient with them!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by 1480

jpm1: I kind of get the jist of what you are saying. As a man that has to run towards the armed maniac, my kevlar vest will more then likely keep me alive if that armed maniac is armed with a handgun or shotgun. A hunting rifle for the most part are either bolt action or semi-automatic BUT use a military rifle round. Kevlar vests will just keep a person's intestines from pouring out of the exit wound. The second thing that scares me about long guns, the men armed with them, tend to be very proficient with them!

Handgun yes, shotgun with buckshot - no. Any hunting rifle - no. Doesn't matter, kevlar, unless full combat armor as used in Iraq, will not do 'anything' against any type of weapon that isn't a handgun. So that is not an argument. Combat armor stops an AK round just fine, but shatters on impact so you get to stop one or two rds in total. Doubt it will stop a hunting rd however. Dragonskin may be the only armor that can save you from pretty much all rds from rifles, assuming they are not large caliber.

-S

[1480]

Handgun yes, shotgun with buckshot - no. Any hunting rifle - no. Doesn't matter, kevlar, unless full combat armor as used in Iraq, will not do 'anything' against any type of weapon that isn't a handgun. So that is not an argument. Combat armor stops an AK round just fine, but shatters on impact so you get to stop one or two rds in total. Doubt it will stop a hunting rd however. Dragonskin may be the only armor that can save you from pretty much all rds from rifles, assuming they are not large caliber.

-S[/quote]

Mr. Steed, I respectfully disagree with your shotgun buckshot argument. A type II-A, II and III-A (soft body armor) will stop the pellets, from a shotgun shell. Mind you it will not tickle.... The rigid and semi rigid level or type III and IV, that you refer to is not practical for everyday law enforcement duties.

I'm a bit confused, the 7.62x39mm round that is used in an AK, isn't it for all intents and purposes (size and speed) a .308 winchester round?


jpm1: In regards to what you posit. Yes, the guns used in Columbine, VT, and closer to home, my former school, NIU, the semi automatics used, facilitated the large casulties caused in each of those tragedies. But, there is an overlooked common theme to each of these mass murders that is unlike what happened in Texas: the mass grouping of targets. Sorry if that sounds cold and crass but it's the truth. "Spray and pray" is our stock answer when a scenario is thrown out at roll call but it applies to each of these events. The survivors of these horrible incidents just happened to be behind the unlucky ones. If a rifle round was used, then you better hope you are behind 3 people. Trying to say one is better then the other is comparing which poison works quicker. They all kill.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by 1480

Yahoshua- yeah, had I've had a front row ticket to the greatest show on earth for 16 years now. My capacity on the job has changed, and as much as I've seen us get thrown to the wolves by our media, citizens and higher ups, I wouldn't change places with anyone.

Come on down to Texas, we could use experienced officers down here.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by jpm1

i don't agree against one personel yes but i let you imagine how a massacre like Columbine's would be difficult to achieve with a hunting rifle

They used a hunting shotgun instead. No military rifle was involved. So what is your point?

On top of this, every shot fired from a hunting rifle would have been more deadly resulting in less injuries and more deaths. Take your pick! And anyone who knows his stuff can fire a hunting rifle nearly as fast as a semi auto! I have some vid on that - good stuff!

-S